Reddicliffe v Westaway[2015] QLC 29

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.

Background

2. [2]
   On 12 September 2013, Ronald Norton Reddicliffe (the miner) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 20269 over land located approximately 22 km north of Bellevue Homestead in the Mareeba District.  The land is within the Mareeba and Cook Shire Council local government areas.  Further renewal is sought for a period of 10 years.  The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of copper.
3. [3]
   Mining Lease 20269 and an associated access track is located on land owned by the respondents and more particularly described as Lot 233 on PH1796. 
4. [4]
   Mapping data supplied by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that ML 20269 comprises an area of 32 ha with a 7 km access track to the mining lease area. No specific details regarding the width of the access track have been provided so I will adopt a figure of 10 m, which will result in an access area of 7 ha.  I consider this to be a realistic assessment which also accords with other Land Court determinations in the Mareeba district.^[1] 

Relevant Legislation

5. [5]
   Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court.  In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with the DNRM and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.
6. [6]
   Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation.  In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:

1. (i)
   deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;

1. (ii)
   diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

1. (iii)
   diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

1. (iv)
   severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the owner;

1. (v)
   any surface rights of access;

1. (vi)
   all loss or expense that arises;

as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease. 

7. [7]
   Section 281(4) enables various additional factors to be included in the compensation determination. In the present case, only paragraph (e) is relevant. It provides as follows:

1. “(4)
   In assessing the amount of compensation payable under subsection (3) -

….

1. (e)
   an additional amount shall be determined to reflect the compulsory nature  of action taken under this part which amount … shall be not less than 10% of   the aggregate amount determined under subsection (3).”

The Conduct of the Proceedings and Evidence

8. [8]
   On 16 March 2015, the Land Court registry wrote to the parties setting out a timetable for the delivery of materials and submissions in accordance with Land Court Practice Direction No.5 of 2013. Neither party responded or submitted any material to the Court.
9. [9]
   In the absence of any material from the parties, the determination of compensation can be challenging.  In Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman,^[2] Member Jones [as he then was] noted as follows:

“I realise that my determination of compensation in this case is the result of little more than calculated guesswork or speculation. However, in circumstances where the parties have elected to provide little or no material to the Court concerning their position about compensation there is not much more that the Court can do.”

10. [10]
    Despite this, several Court judgments from the North Queensland area provide guidance with the determination of compensation in the present case.  These determinations from the Mareeba District range from $5 per hectare per year to $15 per hectare per year.^[3] In the recent case of Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor^[4], Member Smith allowed the sum of $10 per hectare per annum for the area covered by mining and $5 per hectare per annum for access in respect of a renewal of a mining lease. 

Determination

11. [11]
    After considering the limited material and the relevant Court determinations cited above, and taking into account all heads of compensation set out in s 281(3) of the MRA, I assess compensation for Mining Lease 20269 at $10 per hectare per annum in respect of the mining area and $5 per hectare per annum is respect of access.  This results in a total annual amount of $320 per annum in respect of the mining area and $35 per annum in respect of access.
12. [12]
    Applying these amounts over the term of the mining lease (i.e. 10 years) amounts to              $3,550.00 for the 10 year period of the lease.
13. [13]
    Pursuant to Section 281(4)(e) of the MRA, I will add an additional sum of $360.00 to reflect the compulsory nature of the grant of the mining lease.
14. [14]
    This results in total compensation for the 10 year extension period of the mining lease of $3910.00.

Orders

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Thousand and Nine Hundred and Ten dollars ($3,910.00).
2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the issue of Mining Lease 20269 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

G.J. SMITH

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR